Big-Time Charlie

 
D, prosecuted for passing counterfeit money, admits that he bought drinks at a bar for himself and two friends and paid for the drinks with a counterfeit $20 bill but claims ignorance that the bill was counterfeit. The only evidence against him on the issue of knowledge is testimony that while in the company of his two friends, D lit a cigar with a $20 bill. D moves for a directed verdict. How should the judge rule?


div1.gif (1531 bytes)
Home | Contents | Topical Index | Syllabi | Search | Contact Us | Professors' Pages
Cases | Problems | Rules | Statutes | Articles | Commentary